To feel sympathy to the National Trust volunteers at Felbrigg Hall?

[lucydogz]

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-norfolk-40825660&ved=0ahUKEwjXzYeYwb_VAhUDB8AKHfOABAsQiJQBCJcCMCU&usg=AFQjCNESdvsFPzoWQVu_7i8WHq_3mutfKA&ampcf=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">link
I'm pro-inclusion of minority groups, but think the NT should stick to doing it's job - looking after old houses. As most of its volunteers are retired, who might not want to be representatives of whatever right-on case the Trust decide to espouse,it's also short sighted of them to treat volunteers this way.

I hope the volunteers at the local NT property walk out and they get some who genuinely are welcoming to everyone. I would volunteer but not to work with the ones who are there now.

tristrampowell.com/
this is his godson

The National Trust should be open and welcoming to everyone and it shouldn't need a badge for one group and not the others. Particularly as some have experienced racism at properties and I have had to deal with a casual disablism at a couple of them that frankly should not still be happening in this day and age.
A badge pays lip service to one aspect of society only.

I agree Op, I am no homophobe but would object to being told to wear something. Nobody should have anything foisted upon them. There is a subtle but distinct difference between being accepting of other people's choices and being forced to wear something that is an emblem of a cause.. I also agree with pp who make the point about the family's wishes in regard to the particular stately home. A persons sexuality is just a part of them and I get rather irritated if it is used to define them.

Truly private people don't tell anyone they are gay.
People who were out when being gay was illegal, told friends and those they could trust. He actually sounds pretty out given the circumstances.

If I walked in and saw some staff members wearing the rainbow badge and lanyard and others not, I'd assume that those who aren't wearing it have personal reasons for doing so and I wouldn't feel welcome there.

They have the right to choose whether to wear it or not, but I have the right to feel uncomfortable and go elsewhere if there appears to be anti-LGBT sentiment among the volunteers. It's up to the NT then to decide whether they'd rather piss off volunteers or visitors, and to decide their policies accordingly.

Saucery- well said.

An emblem of a cause? The cause is about equal rights, that is all.
Would you also refuse to wear a badge about equal rights for black people, because it is a cause?

And I have heard so many history talks where a straight persons sexuality has been the defining point of what we are told about them, including at NT properties. Funny how no one seems to object to that?

And godson hardly equates with families wishes.

Ovaries, I'd rather just walk in, see a group of volunteers wearing just a name badge and let the way they treat me speak as to whether they are welcoming or not.
That volunteer not wearing the designated lanyard might have many reasons for not doing so. It tells me zip about their attitude towards LGBT visitors.

Why single out one emblem of a cause, brasty?
Have an equality policy, manage your volunteers to ensure it is followed. Deal with any discrimination if it occurs.

They are obviously singling out one emblem, because of the previous owner.

They're not necessarily bigoted if they don't want to wear it. Have a look at what the Pope has recently said about gay people and how the church needs to apologise for their treatment and that Catholics should not judge:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/26/pope-francis-says-christians-should-apologise-to-gay-people

The Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is not a sin but homosexual sex acts are, along with all other sex acts which are not for the purpose of procreation. So many Catholics may feel they have absolutely no problem with homosexuality and do not judge even those who are sexually active as the pope has said they must not. But as homosexual sex acts are still seen as a sin wearing a badge to celebrate their legalisation may feel a step too far for some Catholics.

It's the old adage isn't it? We will tolerate anything except dissent. It's just swapping one set of intolerances for another. In this case religious views.

I actually think the NT has handled this well with it's opt out.

It is an emblem for equal rights based on sexuality, which is one part of equality. I personally wouldn't want to wear one unless there were also ones for equality for women, race etc. That is why I object to the adopting of a single badge. Maybe I'm in the minority on this one.

Saucery My guess is that you are not LGBT, so frankly you have no idea how LGBT constantly have to deal with low level homophobia.

I'm also not sure that this man is such a great icon for gay rights, considering how private he was about his relationships, that he needs to be promoted in this way.
How many times does it need to be pointed out that people could NOT be out about their homosexuality?! It wasn't a case of not feeling like telling everyone, it was an issue with it being illegal.

Mollyboom You have come up with lots and lots of excuses as to why they should not be asked to wear a badge. I frankly don't believe you when you say you support equal rights for gay people.
Although you may be one of those people who say - well what they do in the privacy of their own home is fine, but....

NT visitors are anything but diverse.NT is a charity and has a legal obligation to appeal to as wide a range of people as possible.

I don't think there is yet a badge available which says I'm a decent person and will treat you as you treat me.

If I went to a public site and there was a staff memeber wearing a badge of some sort, I might assume it was because they were there to assist specifically with that issue or had special knowledge about it that they could discuss with visitors, like a first aid badge, or how in some art museums curators have a badge with a specific artwork on it as they have extra knowledge of that painting and are happy to talk about it etc. I would be concerned that having staff wear badges denoting issues they are not comfortable talking about (for whatever reason) is not only counter productive but potentially could lead to a disapointing experience for a visitor.

He actually sounds pretty out given that it was illegal.

You do know Oscar Wilde pretended to be straight to people he did not know well?

Seatoski Presumably all the volunteer guides can talk about the NT spiel of this man's life. Why would you expect anything more than this?

You can guess all you like, brasty, but as you know fuck all about me or my life, family, friends or life experiences all that does is make you look a bit of a dick.

Mollyboom So if you had visitors to your house, you would have no problem with a man giving his boyfriend a quick kiss in front of everyone? Just as I do with my partner when I say goodbye or hello.

Haven't read it all. But volunteers shouldn't be forced to wear badges stating anything IMHO. And if the original owner was a private person who is to say he'd approve of this anyway. It's a daft scheme thought up by some thoughtless person. How could anyone feel sorry for the NT. It's a money making racket. I should know. I'm a member

Saucery Know I now nothing about your life. But you are showing zero understanding of the issues here.